THE autumnal Session of Parliament was opened on Nov. 8th by the Prince Regent in person. The principal topic of his speech was the War with the United States of America, which his Royal Highness affirmed to have originated in the most unprovoked aggression on the part of their Government, and to have been calculated to promote the designs of the common enemy of Europe. It was, however, his sincere desire to bring it to a conclusion upon just and honourable terms, and he was still engaged in negociations for that purpose.

The speech then adverted to the successful operations of the war during the present year; and in touching on the capture of Washington, remarked that it had produced on the inhabitants a deep and sensible impression of the calamities of a war in which they had been so wantonly involved.

A

slight notice was then taken of the reverse on Lake Champlain; but confident expectations were expressed of establishing the ascendency of his Majesty's arms in Canada. The retardation of the opening of the congress at Vienna was next spoken of, as owing to unavoidable causes, and assurance

was given of his Royal Highness's endeavours to consolidate the peace in which he had been a party, by a just equilibrium among the powers of Europe. Addressing the House of Commons, the speech informed them of the flourishing state of the public revenue and commerce, but expressed regret for the necessity of a large expenditure in the ensuing year. It concluded with an observation on the state in which the late war must have left the countries engaged in it, with respect to their internal condition, and their commercial relations; and with recommending to Parliament great caution in adopting regulations for extending our trade, and securing our present advantages.

In the House of Lords, the corresponding address to the Prince Regent was moved by the Earl of Abingdon, and was seconded by Earl Delaware.

The Earl of Darnley then rose and said, he wished he could have coincided with the last noble lord in the youthful ardour with which he hailed the national prospects; but on the whole view of the state of the country he found no cause for congratulation. He particu-, larly adverted to the extraordinary

circumstance, that while our military reputation was raised to the highest pitch, our naval should have sunk, and that during the course of the war, with but few exceptions, victory should have been on the enemy's side in actions between vessels of the same class.

Lord Melville, in reply to this observation, said that such general and declamatory charges were not capable of an answer, but he would ask to what distinct failure the allusion was made. He would himself enter into a few details on the subject. The Americans sending no fleets to sea, but possessing numerous seamen, and a multitude of privateers, the question of success or discomfiture was to be decided by looking to the protection afforded to trade against their means of annoyance. We had now within a few hundreds, 20,000 American seamen prisoners of war. We had captured from them more than 200 ships of war and armed vessels, and had taken 900 other vessels. Notwithstanding the increase of their privateers, the premium of insurance was somewhat less in last June, than in the June preceding. The captures made from us from the peace of Paris down to the last month were reported at 172; but of these 94 were running ships; and of the rest, 38 were separated from convoy, either through stress of weather, or wilfully; and the whole number of the coasting trade lost was only 11. With respect to the noble lord's assertion, that when our ships met with an equal force of the enemy's, they were beaten, except in a few instances, he could assure him that he was totally mistaken. If the events of the war

in Canada were alluded to, when the noble lord should bring on his inquiry in a regular shape, he trusted he should be able to satisfy him.

Lord Grenville said he was not to be drawn off by this parade of detail from the actual fact, that there was a general impression in the country of great mismanagement in the naval administration. The opinion of the community could not be misunderstood, when the merchants of England, after having been repelled from the Admiralty with flippant and empty answers, were seen laying their remonstrances at the foot of the throne. After some further observations to this purpose, he said he hoped there would be an early day appointed for the inquiry; and that it would be entered into with solemn and impartial seriousness. His Lordship then, adverting to the address, acknowledged that with all his desire to look favourably on the prospects of the country, they were clouded to his view. The speech told them only of new burdens, of severe additions to those which were already severe; no economy, no husbanding, no reduction. He lamented its language respecting the negociation with America. He professed a readiness to make peace on just and honourable terms; but these were mere words of course, and he should have expected a declaration what were the grounds on which peace would be made. He hoped the war still carried on was not one of resentment or revenge, much less of punishment, in order to make the people of the United States feel the weight of our power. This topic led his lordship to con

war

sider the devastation made at Washington, which he condemned in the most unqualified manner, as an act which could tend to no useful purpose, and which gave the first example of recurring to the maxims of a barbarous and antiquated policy. It had, indeed, been defended on the ground of retaliation, which, however, ought to have been expressly stated at the time. A subsequent proclamation had been issued, in which, on the same ground, a necessity was declared of carrying on against the private property of the American people. If it were true that we were in a situation which imperatively called for such measures, he trusted that parliament would be made acquainted with the circumstances which had brought affairs to such a deplorable crisis. With respect to the general state of Europe, his lordship could not avoid mentioning it as a great omission in the speech, that no notice was taken of our still keeping up on the Continent an army of 40,000 men. In what part of our history was an example found of such a force in British pay in a time of profound peace, and what power had a King of England to keep it without consent of parliament? On the whole, the speech appeared to him ill suited to the existing state of the country, and with these objections it was impossible for him to give his approbation to the address.

The Earl of Liverpool could not agree with the noble baron that the address was marked by any peculiar features of a warlike character. He thought it more consistent with the dignity of the crown to describe the state of the

country as it actually was, than to hold out hopes as to the result of events and proceedings still depending. The Earl then went through the several objections of his lordship, and replied to each. He justified the acts at Washington as an exercise of retaliation; and with respect to the proclamation of Sir Alexander Cochrane, he said that a subsequent instruction had been sent to the commander on that station. As to the circumstance of keeping up a large army on the Continent in time of peace, he allowed that there might be no precedent for it, because no state of things similar to that in which the war concluded had ever before existed. The policy of the measure was connected with the state of our foreign relations, and might become a future subject of discussion.

The question for the address passed without a division.

In the House of Commons the address on the speech was moved by Lord Bridport, and seconded by Mr. Graham. A conversation on a variety of points relative to the state of politics, foreign and do mestic, ensued, which, after the summary above given of the debate in the House of Lords, it is unim→ portant to specify. The address was agreed to without a division.

Though in this short session of parliament several topics of importance were introduced to the notice of both houses, yet as the greater part of them were only suggested as matter of future discussion, we shall confine our report to the few subjects on which the proceedings were final.

On Nov. 11, Earl Fitzwilliam rose in the House of Lords for the

purpose of submitting a motion relative to the continuation of certain militia regiments without disembodying. He said that great care had been taken by the legislature to prevent the burthen of the militia ballot from pressing more heavily than the exigencies of the public service required; the prerogative of the crown was therefore restrained, and the establishment of that species of force was regulated, by various acts of parlia ment. The cases in which the militia might be called out were specifically stated, and were, 1st, actual invasion; 2nd, imminent danger thereof; 3rd, insurrection; 4th, rebellion; but none of these at present existed. It was a great hardship upon the balloted men to be detained from their families longer than the continuance of the exigence which had empowered the government to call them out, after which time they were legally entitled to return to their homes. It was also a hardship upon the counties and townships which lay under the obligation of providing for their wives and families. These considerations induced him to move, That an account be laid before their Lordships of the regiments of militia which had been disembodied, and also of those which still remain embodied.

Lord Sidmouth, as the person who presided in the department whence the order for suspending the disembodying of the militia had proceeded, felt himself called upon to reply to the observations of the noble earl. The legislature had been auxious to guard the militia force by regulations, not merely for the purpose suggested, but with a view to restrain the prero

gative and influence of the crown with respect to it. The acts of parliament to which the noble Earl had alluded, as pointing out the cases in which the militia might be called out, were not to be construed narrowly; and it was always understood that the country being at war was an exigence justifying such a measure, and that during the continuance of that state, the militia services were to be continued as long as the crown should judge it to be of public advantage. There could be no injustice in such continuance towards the men, since the balloted man was bound by his oath to serve five years, and the substitute, as long as the regiment continued embodied. As to the hardships on the counties and townships, he did not know but they might have an equitable claim for re-imbursement. He affirmed that there had been no partiality shown with respect to the parti cular regiments embodied or disembodied; and would not oppose the production of the account required.

Lord Grenville said, that specific cases being pointed out by the militia act, it was illegal to wander from them. The militia had been called out only four times since the original act, and each time in strict conformity with the cases provided. These were, in the seven years' war; in the American war, but not till after France and Spain joined in it; in 1792, when there was danger of insurrection (the extent and depth of which danger, said Lord G., no man now living, perhaps, knows better than myself); and the beginning of the war just now closed, in which invasion was fully determined on by

the enemy. But even in the case of the apprehended insurrection, which was probably the most formidable of these periods, the House thought it proper to examine at length the grounds of embodying the militia.

Lord Sidmouth said, that the noble lord's facts would serve him for nothing unless he could shew that the militia was disembodied the moment the first cry of invasion or insurrection was over, which did not correspond with the fact.

Lord Donoughmore was surprised to find that the measure of retaining some of the militia regiments was meant to be permanent, as he conceived from the intended introduction of a bill; and he thought there might be reasons of patronage connected with the choice. He knew that in Ireland a militia regiment was thought one of the best things that could be given away.

Lord Liverpool affirmed that there was no idea of turning the present mode of disembodying the militia into a permanent measure; and said that the bill was merely to relieve townships from partial pressures, such as providing for the families of militiamen and the like. The question was then put and carried.

The subject was afterwards taken up in the House of Com

mons.

Sir S. Romilly, on Nov. 28th, after, by his desire, the militia acts, of the 48th and 49th of the king had been read, rose and declared, that having used his best endeavours to investigate the matter, he was of opinion that in omitting to disembody the militia, the ministers had acted illegally and unconstitu

tionally. It was a question that admitted of no doubt, as it depended entirely on the plain words of the statute. He then referred to the four causes for calling out the militia, as stated in a former speech; and proceeded to say, that if the House would consider the object of the militia laws, it would be confirmed in the opinion, that without a violation of the constitution, ministers could not, in time of profound peace, hold the militia from their houses and families, subject to the privations of military service. The militia was not an army, but a mass of armed citizens, not losing, but only having suspended for a time, the advantage of the equal laws of their country. If, in the present circumstances, the militia might continue embodied, there was no reason why it might not remain so during the rest of his Majesty's reign. The only defence he had heard of this measure was, that we were still at war with America; but was there a man so timid or credulous as to fear invasion from that country? Should it be said that the restrictions of the act had a reference not to the disembodying, but to the calling out, of the militia, would not such, an argument render it merely an option in the crown whether the militia should be disbanded at all? He understood that the conduct of the ministers was sanctioned by the authority of the law-officers of the crown. If the opinion had been given first, and then acted upon, it would have been much better. He did not mean to insinuate that it would have been different under different circumstan→ ces; but it was impossible not to see that the question came before